Key Relationships
3. Democracy and E-democracy
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Therefore, initiatives nowadays bring groups and individuals together by using social media. They amplify their voices and make their expectations, desires and frustrations in public. Some of these initiatives have demonstrated the competence to mobilize people and networks and to push government for action.
Internet enables connection of various networked local events to occur in different parts of the world. While the network is global, events are local. New geographies are thus formed as exploding contextual limits and boundaries between localities and previous hierarchies of scale. We can say that the public sphere has become hybrid as it incorporates virtual and geographical spaces, and traditional and social media.
3. Democracy and E-democracy
As it has been debated for a long time, democratic theory is perhaps one of the best and longest political contentions. Larosa (2005) explains that the origin of the word democracy comes from the Greek. It is the combination between the word ‘demos’, which means ‘people’, and the word ‘kratos’, which means
‘government’. Literally, democracy means government by or of the people. Regarding democracy, the majority rules are either directly through elected representatives or appointed officials without the restraint embodied in a fixed body of law. The law is whatever an official organ of government determines it is.3It is ruled by whim rather than law and by emotion rather than reason. Individuals have no inherent rights, but they are considered the products of history (slavery, the renaissance, dark ages, etc.), culture (western, oriental, etc.), class (nobility, merchant, artisan, peasant, etc.), gender (male or female), race (Caucasian, Negroid, etc.), religion (Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Moslem, Jewish, etc.), etc., and they are classified and categorized accordingly. Rights emanate from the mass will or power. The purpose of government is to satisfy needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.).
3“The law is in their mouth,” as was said of absolute monarchs.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
It is government by conflicting biases with the result that members of politically powerful constituencies receive privileges because of their classification within certain categories rather than on merit at the expense of everyone else. The racial and other quotas under Affirmative Action are an example.Democracy concentrates power into the hands of the few organized and clever enough to manipulate the masses. It is characterized by a communistic attitude toward property and monopolistic enterprises. It becomes an instrument for the redistribution of wealth as well as the security of the state. It is the rule of men, the dictatorship of the majority without regard to the consequences upon individuals or society.
In the same way, Hyland (1995) raises a sharp question and gives some ideas of democracy in the case where the mostthorough conceptual analysis fails to provide an adequateanswer to the question “What is democracy?” by a politicaltheorist.
There are several reasons for this. First, inaccordance with the interpretations of the tasks of political theory asset out in the previous chapter, the political theory of democracy will be, for instance, identification and critical analysis of what is called the programmatic core of democratic ideology, the whole complex of structures, institutions, procedures, rules and background conditions to which a democrat would be committed. Therefore, democratic control over the rules and conditions produced by government decisions. The decision is dependent on a representative system and controlled by citizens through political parties, both in the process whereby such parties formulate their policies and in the implementation of those policies by the ruling party of the day.
Charteris (2002) argues that Western discourses on democracy which endorse a normative notion of liberal democracy have influenced the Indonesian, Thai, and the Philippines governments. However, many non-governmental organizations have resisted such homogenization by constructing a variety of democratic definitions which account for cultural specificities. It is clear that the formation of discourses on democracy for regional and local NGOs entails more than top-down adoption of external views.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Albritton and Thawilwadee (2004) point out thatsome scholars believe that the word for democracy (prachathipatai) refers to King the ideology of democracy which began in 1932 and appeared to have lasted throughout democratic, despotic and authoritarian governments.This is sometimes considered to ascribe ambiguous meanings to the concept of democracy. Wyatt (1984) suggests that, during the early days of constitutional governance, enthusiasm for democracy was not dampened by the fact that people had no clear idea of the meaning of constitution and democracy. In a more modern context, the debate over “Asian values” suggests that there are significant semantic differentials in understandings of democracy between those who hold essentially procedural views of democracy and those who hold more substantive ones.
Given these different perceptions and orientations, what does democracy means? It is possible that the distinction between subjective and objective indicators of democracy affects measures of democratic support. The “ideology” of democracy has its rootsestablished in Thailand since the 1932downfall of the absolute Thai monarchy. More recently, the period of democratic government, which was during 1973-1976, reinforced democratic values in a way that it has persisted until the present. It is possible, therefore, to hold highly democratic values even under authoritarian regimes, and the commitment to democracy has been sustained in periods of both democratic and authoritarian rule. It was precisely this mass commitment to democracy that created the major obstacle to sustain the military coup in 1991. Clearly, a military regime is no longer tolerated by a society with high commitments to democratic values.
Although the definitions of democracy were widely discussed, they are still under the debate of Western scholars. The next part would be a discussion of the Thailand case. According to the 2010 National Survey of the Thai electorate (2010) regarding an understanding of democracy in 2009 and 2010, almost half of the respondents, which accounted for 48% in 2009 and 49% in 2010, described democracy in terms of rights and freedoms while another third, which accounted for 36% in 2009 and 34% in 2010, described it in terms of elections.
‧
increase of respondents in 2010democracy.
Comparing between 2009 and 2010, c
perspective of their rights and freedom. Only 12% of citizens in 2009 described their rights and freedomsin
increased to 35% in 2010. R
of action (16%) in 2009, and the number decreased to 3% and 11% respectively in 2010. The survey results are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: A lot of people in Thailand today are talking about democracy. If is called a democratic country
(Source: 2010: National Survey of the Thai electorate:
Exploring National Consensus and Color Polarization) rban residents (53%) were likely to cite rights an
rural residents (47%). Greater Bangkok residents (26%) were significantly less likely to stress elections compared to citizens in the North and Central Regions (37%).
Comparing to the number of respondents in 2009 (9%), there was increase of respondents in 2010 (11%) who could not provide a character
Comparing between 2009 and 2010, citizens had a different ive of their rights and freedom. Only 12% of citizens in 2009 described their rights and freedomsin terms of freedom of speech or opinion
increased to 35% in 2010. Respondents had stressed equal rights (20%) and freedom in 2009, and the number decreased to 3% and 11% respectively in 2010. The survey results are shown in Figure 4.
ople in Thailand today are talking about democracy. If is called a democratic country, what does that mean to you?
(Source: 2010: National Survey of the Thai electorate:
Exploring National Consensus and Color Polarization)
were likely to cite rights and freedoms than Greater Bangkok residents (26%) were significantly less likely to stress elections compared to citizens in the North and Central Regions (37%).
here was also a slight
%) who could not provide a characteristic of
itizens had a different ive of their rights and freedom. Only 12% of citizens in 2009 described their inion whilethe number espondents had stressed equal rights (20%) and freedom in 2009, and the number decreased to 3% and 11% respectively in
ople in Thailand today are talking about democracy. If a country , what does that mean to you?
(Source: 2010: National Survey of the Thai electorate:
Exploring National Consensus and Color Polarization)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Regarding people support for democracy, the results showedthat there was a slight decline in support for democracy as the best form of government from 95% to 93% from 2009 to 2010. There was a significant decrease of the number of citizens who strongly believed democracy was the best form of governance from over two-thirds (69%) in 2009 to less than half (47%) in 2010.
There was a 6% drop in overall support for democracy among rural Northerners, from 98% in 2009 to 92% in 2010, and there was also a 27% drop in strong support, from 80% in 2009 to only 53% in 2010.
Although there was a 30-point dropping in strong support from 57% to 27%, the city of Bangkok was the only area that did not see a decline in overall support for democracy, which accounted for 91% in both 2009 and 2010. The area with the least change was the South where overall support dropped only 0.5% from 93.3% to 92.8%, and strong support dropped 7 points from 54% to 47%. Although these changes were relatively similar across gender and age groups, the greatest dropwere seen among those who aged 50-59 as the number decreased from 74% in 2009 to 46% in 2010 as shown in the following figure.
Figure 5: Democracy may have its problems, but it is better than any other form of government. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
(Source: 2010: National Survey of the Thai electorate:
Exploring National Consensus and Color Polarization)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The discussion in the previous phase demonstrates thatthe political movement in Thailand relatively fits on Huntington suggestion. The 2010 National Survey of the Thai electorate also shows Thai people perception toward democracy.
Even thoughit is evidenced that Thailand’s political system has long been shifted from monarchy to democracy, whichis known as the so-called constitution monarchy, the system, as in reality, has been repeatedly turned into soft authoritarian regime for many time since the 1932. Also, Thai people’s perception toward democracy is different, thus the democratic system in Thailand is always easily toppled. The underlying cause in the political system is discussed in the next phase.
On the other hand, recently e-democracy is the phenomenon which represents a new democracy generation. As Clift (2002) puts it, e-democracy is the use of information and communication technologies and strategies by “democratic sectors” within the political processes of local communities, states or regions, nations and on the global stage. The “democratic sectors” include the following democratic actors, namely governments, elected officials, media (and major online portals), political parties and interest groups, civil society organizations, international governmental organizations and citizens or voters. He alsooperates the Democracies Online Newswire (http://www.e-democracy.org/do) which offers this text as the theoretical basis for e-democracy.
Each sector often views its new online developments in isolation.
They are relatively unaware of the online activities of the other sectors. As they are applied to use information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve or enhance democratic practices, e-democracy is seen to be a lot more challenging to implement than a speculation on its potential. This is why it is essential for the best e-democracy lessons and practices to be documented and shared. This simplified model illustrating e-democracy activities as a whole. According to the first diagram, it sits as a filter on the “input” border between citizens and governance.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Figure 6: E-Democracy Conceptual Model (Source:Steven Clift - Publicus.Net, 2003)
However, Sæbø and Päivärinta (2013) argues that democracy models represent a common way of characterizing different forms of democracy. They suggest a simplified comparison of various e-democracy models based on two fundamental characteristics, inclusion in decisions and control of the agenda as shown in figure 7.
Figure 7: E-Democracy Conceptual Model (Source: Øystein Sæbø and Tero Päivärinta, 2013)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
As they conclude, each democracy model generally can be assumed that citizens should participate in democratic communication, but the purpose of such communication varies according to the idea of citizen participation and relationships between citizens and other stakeholders which varies among the democracy models.
Whereas all democracy models can involve use of ICT, some forms and individually seemingly the same genres of communication (i.e., parts of the what-aspect) can be actually the same regardless of the democracy model.
Also, Caldow (2004) argues that e-democracy has both tactical and strategic sides. On the tactical side, information technology has advanced communication and the access to information to be arguably better than any known medium. But something even more fundamental is at hand. The underlying core principle of democracy is an informed and engaged citizenry. Most governments get passing marks for “informing” citizens via digital communication. But the vast majority has a long way to go to “actively engage” citizens or to effectively exert global influence by using digital media. These elements are comprised of the most overlooked dimension of e-democracy. The Institute for Electronic Government’s model takes a leap forward in both the definition and implementation of e-democracy.
Regarding to its work, it is suggested that The IEG model is not limited to the citizen to government point of view and mapping progression from an informed to an engaged citizenry. It also serves as a scorecard of digital savvy on howa government entity successfully interprets and responds to the digital world and exploits technology accordingly to advance influence.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Figure 8: E-democracy Model Institute for Electronic Government (Source:Janet Caldow Director Institute for Electronic Government, IBM, 2004)
However, Blakeley and Matsuura (2001) point out that e-democracy has limitation especially when it is involved with government. There is no reason to believe that Internet access will be provided in a manner that is free from government oversight, review or even active government interception. These goals can be accomplished in a number of ways. Government ownership of the Internet access provider is not the only way in which government may monitor or control Internet usage by its citizens.
The government may make it illegal to access certain websites containing certain types of content and may impose on private Internet access providers the legal obligation to monitor or restrict such access. For example, in China, the government requires Internet companies, including Internet cafes, to be licensed and to furnish to the government upon the request of providing lists of those individuals who have connected to their facilities or servers. Therefore, to ensure that people or citizen can participate in e-democracy, it has a particular method to evaluate e-democracy. Funilkul and Chutimaskul (2008) suggest that intrinsic e-democracy applications are:
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
E-Information is the provision of information from government organizations through electronic media such as e-mails and web site. This information is general information from government organizations that needs to be distributed to citizens. The distribution of information can be done instantly, daily, weekly, monthly or annually depending on the policy of each organization. Therefore, the E-Information is related to the equality principle. Citizens have opportunity in receiving information according to their needs anytime and anywhere;
E-Service is the provision of government services through electronic media. The services are information or other services apart from general services that are normally provided by government organizations. This form of service will be provided by the government when it is requested by citizens. The examples of E-Services are online enrollment and online payments. The E-Service is related to the equality principle. Citizens can easily request for services according to their needs;
E-Voting is the exercising of voting rights of citizens in a democratic system. The voting does not only include voting according to the specified terms, but also includes the voting as a part of a public hearing or voting in referenda for issues related to the democratic process, no matter if it is for specified terms or special terms. Since citizens in a democratic country who are eligible voters, or those having ages of 18 years old and higher are under the enforcement of law and sovereign power to elect their administrator, the E-Voting application, therefore, is related to both popular sovereignty and the rule of law;
E-Complaint is the services for the citizens to make complaints to government organizations. Complaints are sent directly to the related persons in the specific government organization for consideration. Government organizations need to set policies and objectives regarding complaint making so that citizens can properly and conveniently make complaints. Besides, government organizations are able to respond to those complaints in a short time. The E-Complaint can be linked to the majority rule principle in which the citizens can use their sovereign power to protest against the falseness of government work and to suggest and complain about political matters;
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
E-Forum is the service that provides opportunities in sharing respective political ideas and opinions between government organizations and citizens and among the citizens themselves. The E-Forum will enhance the process of citizens’
opinion formation through their deliberative engagement (Delakorda, 2006). Ideas are given in a public hearing to gain overall opinions from citizens’ various viewpoints on the issues proposed by either citizens or government organizations. However, those issues must be in line with the policies or objectives of the government organizations.
Following the figure shown below, the E-Forum can be linked to the liberty and majority rule principles in which citizens can have freedom to discuss and to show their ideas towards political matters.
Figure 9: The intrinsic E-democracy applications (Source: Funilkul and Chutimaskul, 2008)
Consensus is at least regarded as e-democracy because it affects citizen engagement andsupports the enhancement of democracy, democratic institutions and democratic processes. Moreover, it is based on the democratic, human, social, ethical and cultural values of the society in which it is implemented. Therefore, e-democracy is a new process which goes beyond Huntington paradigm of democracy. It is a further step of democracy which is merged between democratic theory and technology.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Meanwhile, e-democracy is a new phenomenonin Thailand which comes along with e-participation in social media. However, in Thailand, the government has authority and power to control information and communication through enforcement of censorship policy and law. Despite the claims that it is established to protect national security issues, it has created controversial issues, particularly regarding good governance and democracy. Since Computer Crime Act of 2007 was enacted, this piece of legislation has created a significant and negative impact on the freedom of expression on the Internet. Consequently, the issue has put the Thai government (Ms.Shinawatra’s goverment)on a serious challenge.
Any Internet service provider that fails to blacklist a requested website will be reprimanded by the government via cancellation of licenses or restriction on bandwidth capacity. As being feared of sanctions, local ISPs strictly abide by Thailand Internet censorship. Just three years ago, the country’s Communications Ministry requested for approximately 2,500 websites to be blocked. A year after that, the number of blocked websites increased to more than 13,000 representing over 500% rise in blacklisted sites. Today, the number of websites censored by the ministry through local ISPs is largely unknown.
The reason for blocking websites is to protect national security which could be possibly disclosed to the public. Many Internet users feel that the rules regarding Thailand Internet censorship are mainly based on the government’s security and stability. Thai government has also spent millions of dollars for an Internet gateway system that will block any harsh comments on the country’s supreme ruler.
The same system can also be used to blacklist the sites owned by terrorists and those that deal in pornography. It must be emphasized, though, that all the steps taken by
The same system can also be used to blacklist the sites owned by terrorists and those that deal in pornography. It must be emphasized, though, that all the steps taken by